DOCSLIB.ORG

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE of SOCIAL SCIENCES Cemal Barkın ENGİN Deparment of Music Music Programme OCTOBER 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE of SOCIAL SCIENCES Cemal Barkın ENGİN Deparment of Music Music Programme OCTOBER 2 ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES THE ROLE OF THE TIMBRAL MANIPULATION IN ELECTROACOUSTIC COMPOSITION IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Ph.D. THESIS Cemal Barkın ENGİN Deparment of Music Music Programme OCTOBER 2012 ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES THE ROLE OF THE TIMBRAL MANIPULATION IN ELECTROACOUSTIC COMPOSITION IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Cemal Barkın ENGİN (409052002) Deparment of Music Music Programme Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Cihat AŞKIN OCTOBER 2012 İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ TINI MANİPÜLASYONUNUN ELEKTROAKUSTİK KOMPOZİSYONDA TARİHSEL BAĞLAMDAKİ ROLÜ DOKTORA TEZİ Cemal Barkın ENGİN (409052002) Müzik Bölümü Müzik Programı Tez Danışmanı : Prof. Dr. Cihat AŞKIN EKİM 2012 Cemal Barkın Engin, a Ph.D. student of ITU Institute of Social Sciences student ID 409052002 successfully defended the dissertation entitled “THE ROLE OF TIMBRAL MANIPULATION IN ELECTROACOUSTIC COMPOSITION IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT”, which he prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures are below. Thesis Advisor: Prof.Dr.Cihat AŞKIN ………………….. Istanbul Technical University Jury Members: Doç.Dr.Kıvılcım YILDIZ ŞENÜRKMEZ .............................. Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University State Conservatory Yrd.Doç.Dr.İlke BORAN ………………….. Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University State Conservatory Yrd.Doç.Dr.Can KARADOĞAN ………………….. Istanbul Technical University Yrd.Doç.Dr.Ozan BAYSAL ………………….. Istanbul Technical University Date of Submission: 28 May 2012 Date of Defense: 17 October 2012 v vi Sevla ve Berkay Engin’e, vii viii FOREWORD Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to all past and present MIAM contributors for completely changing my life in an unpredictable yet extremely positive way. For the last ten years, they became a (continuously expanding) second family to me. Although I am deeply indebted to many bright and beautiful individuals I met during this experience, it is mandatory for me to name a few in my limited space. Without them, I could not have even dreamed of this. My ever-growing appreciation to my parents cannot be put into words sufficiently enough. I started to understand the true value of their continuous belief and support much better as the years went by. I am also grateful to Erdem and Oya Ertay and the rest of lovely Ertay family for their kind and generous support, which definitely helped me to continue exploring this ceaseless path even in challenging moments. It was an honor for me to work under the supervision of such a creatively diverse and respectable jury committee. Starting with my advisor Cihat Aşkın, I would like to pay my sincere respects to Şehvar Beşiroğlu, Kıvılcım Yıldız, Can Karadoğan, Ozan Baysal and İlke Boran for their graceful efforts and their valuable time to improve this work. I would like to thank Dr. John Dack for providing me peerless resources regarding to an almost isolated field. His works unquestionably enabled me to construct the theoretical backbone of this dissertation. I also would like to thank Ahmet Altınel for his intellectual guidance and rewarding comments. More than a colleague and a friend, Burak Tamer deserves his own section for my endless praises. The countless days and nights, we spent together in various concert halls and recording studios provided me with the necessary aesthetical, practical and theoretical knowledge required for my lifelong research and other musical activities. Finally, I would like to thank to Aslı Tanrıverdi for her encouragement and patience through the good and bad times of this long process. October 2012 Cemal Barkın ENGİN ix x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... xi ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. xiii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………xv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xvii SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………......xix ÖZET ........................................................................................................................ xxi 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ...................1 1.1 The Objectives of the Dissertation ..................................................................... 7 1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 9 2.SCHAEFFERIAN THEORY ............................................................................... 13 2.1 Fundamentals of Schaefferian Theory ............................................................. 14 2.2 Deviations from Schaefferian Theory .............................................................. 20 2.2.1 Headline debate ..................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Natural sounds / synthesized sounds ..................................................... 24 2.2.3 Suitable sound objects ........................................................................... 25 2.2.4 The symbiosis of attack and timbre ....................................................... 28 2.2.5 Sound object manipulation .................................................................... 29 2.2.6 Reduced listening vs. heightened listening ........................................... 31 3. HISTORY AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 33 3.1 Early Theoretical and Technological Developments ....................................... 33 3.1.1 Concise history of audio recording ....................................................... 40 3.2.1 Abstract art ............................................................................................ 42 3.2 Analysis ............................................................................................................ 45 3.2.1 Quatro pezzi per orchestra ..................................................................... 46 3.2.2 Polymorphia .......................................................................................... 54 3.2.3 Kontrakadenz ........................................................................................ 61 3.2.4 Studie II ................................................................................................. 69 3.2.5 Etude aux objets .................................................................................... 76 3.2.6 De natura sonorum ................................................................................ 81 4. SYNTHESIS AND PROCESSING ..................................................................... 87 4.1 Fundamentals ................................................................................................... 87 4.2 Analog: Before the Microprocessors ................................................................ 89 4.2.1 Additive synthesis .................................................................................. 91 4.2.2 Subtractive synthesis .............................................................................. 95 4.2.3 Modulation ........................................................................................... 104 4.2.4 Time based effects ................................................................................ 105 4.3 Digital: After the Microprocessors ................................................................. 106 4.3.1 FM synthesis ........................................................................................ 107 4.3.2 Granular synthesis ................................................................................ 108 xi 4.3.3 Waveshaping ............................................................................................. 108 5. ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY .................................................................... 111 6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 113 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 117 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 123 CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 137 xii ABBREVIATIONS AM : Amplitude Modulation ATM : Absolute Manipulation CPU : Central Processing Unit dB : Decibel DM : Dynamic Manipulation EARS : ElectroAcoustic Resource Site FFT : Fast Fourier Transform FM : Frequency Modulation GRM : Groupe des Recherches Musicales Hz : Hertz IPS : Inch per second Ms : Millisecond PM : Phase Manipulation PROGREMU : Program for Musical Research RM : Ring modulation RAM : Random Access Memory RMS : Root Mean Square RPM : Revolutions per Minute RT 60 : Reverb Time SM : Spectral Manipulation TM : Tessitura Manipulation TBM : Time based Manipulation WDR : West Deutsche Rundfunk xiii xiv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 : Listening modes .............................................................................. ........15 Table 2.2 : Schaeffer’s division of ordinary music and new music .................. ........21 Table 3.1 : Early innovations and manifestations ............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A System for Sound Analysis/Transformation/Synthesis Based on a Deterministic Plus Stochastic Decomposition
    A SYSTEM FOR SOUND ANALYSIS/TRANSFORMATION/SYNTHESIS BASED ON A DETERMINISTIC PLUS STOCHASTIC DECOMPOSITION a dissertation submitted to the department of music and the committee on graduate studies of stanford university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy By Xavier Serra October 1989 c Copyright 1989 by Xavier Serra ii A SYSTEM FOR SOUND ANALYSIS/TRANSFORMATION/SYNTHESIS BASED ON A DETERMINISTIC PLUS STOCHASTIC DECOMPOSITION Xavier Serra, Ph.D. Stanford University, 1989 This dissertation introduces a new analysis/synthesis method. It is designed to obtain musically useful intermediate representations for sound transformations. The method’s underlying model assumes that a sound is composed of a deterministic component plus a stochastic one. The deterministic component is represented by a series of sinusoids that are described by amplitude and frequency functions. The stochastic component is represented by a series of magnitude-spectrum envelopes that function as a time-varying filter excited by white noise. Together these representations make it possible for a synthesized sound to attain all the perceptual characteristics of the original sound. At the same time the representation is easily modified to create a wide variety of new sounds. This analysis/synthesis technique is based on the short-time Fourier transform (STFT). From the set of spectra returned by the STFT, the relevant peaks of each spectrum are detected and used as breakpoints in a set of frequency trajectories. The deterministic signal is obtained by synthesizing a sinusoid from each trajectory. Then, in order to obtain the stochastic component, a set of spectra of the deterministic component is computed, and these spectra are subtracted from the spectra of the original sound.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewpoints on the History of Digital Synthesis∗
    Viewpoints on the History of Digital Synthesis∗ Julius O. Smith III Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) Department of Music, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 USA December 28, 2005 1 Introduction In a highly stimulating Science article, Max Mathews painted an exciting vision of \the digital computer as a musical instrument" [7]. \Sound from numbers," it pointed out, was a completely general way to synthesize sound because the bandwidth and dynamic range of hearing are bounded: \any perceivable sound can be so produced." In The Technology of Computer Music [8], Mathews wrote \The two fundamental problems in sound synthesis are (1) the vast amount of data needed to specify a pressure function|hence the necessity of a very fast program|and (2) the need for a simple, powerful language in which to describe a complex sequence of sounds." Problem 1 has been solved to a large extent by the march of technology. Digital processor performance has increased at the rate of more than 40% per year for the past fifteen years, and the trend shows no sign of weakening. At present, multiple voices of many synthesis techniques can be sustained in real time on a personal computer. Problem 2 remains unsolved, and cannot, in principle, ever be completely solved. Since it takes millions of samples to make a sound, nobody has the time to type in every sample of sound for a musical piece. Therefore, sound samples must be synthesized algorithmically, or derived from recordings of natural phenomena. In any case, a large number of samples must be specified or manipulated according a much smaller set of numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • SYNTHESISERS and INTERFACE DESIGN & Implementation DEVELOPMENT of Synthesiser Control and Performance Interfaces
    This article discusses and evaluates the design SYNTHESISERS and INTERFACE DESIGN & implementation DEVELOPMENT of synthesiser control and performance interfaces. By Paul Hazel 1992 r Paul Hazel 1999 Authors Note This article dates from 1992. A lot has changed since then. In particular, many of the problems with synthesizers discussed here have been at least partially addressed. In recent years there have been a range of new synths with 'strong' operating systems and a high degree of control (both in terms of the front panel and via MIDI continuous controllers). However the discussions of interface design itself, and the extensive overview of the history of the synthesizer [that is, 95% of the article] remain accurate and relevant. Enjoy! Synthesisers: Interface Design - Page 2 BACK TO CONTENTS Contents Click on a link to navigate to its page. 1:ENTER 2:THE INTERFACE 3:DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT 4:MIDI AND BEYOND 5:EXIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES Moog Minimoog. Synthesisers: Interface Design - Page 1 1: Enter There is a common perception that there is something wrong with synthesizer interfaces. Synthesizers have become difficult and time consuming to use, to the extent that a lot of people have just given up on them. They never attempt to program new sounds or in any way delve into the inner workings of the machine, skimming across the surface of the 'cyberspace' within. If they want new sounds they buy them on RAM cards or CD-ROM's, or maybe just buy a new synthesizer! Rather naively, I initially took this problem to be simply a function of the control panel: certainly on some synthesizers this may be a significant factor.
    [Show full text]
  • Timbre Is a Many-Splendored Thing
    TIMBRE 2018: TIMBRE IS A MANY SPLENDORED THING TANNA SCHULICH RECITAL HALL ELIZABETH WIRTH MUSIC BUILDING SCHULICH SCHOOL OF MUSIC MCGILL UNIVERSITY MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC 4 – 7 JULY 2018 PROGRAM & ABSTRACTS Published by: The Schulich School of Music McGill University 555 rue Sherbrooke ouest Montréal, QC Canada H3A 1E3 This conference was made possible with the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Schulich School of Music of McGill University, and the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology (CIRMMT). Citation: In E. Thoret, M. Goodchild & S. McAdams (Eds.), Timbre 2018: Timbre Is a Many- Splendored Thing, Montreal, QC: McGill University © July 2018 the authors and McGill University ISBN 978-1-77247-013-0 2 3 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Stephen McAdams Chair Meghan Goodchild Co-chair Etienne Thoret Paper chair Moe Touizrar Musical event chair Kit Soden Tutorial/Round table chair Hannah Darroch Logistics and managerial support Aliza Thibodeau Logistics and managerial support Manda Fischer Graphic design INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE Martha de Francisco McGill University (Sound recording) Philippe Depalle McGill University (Signal processing) Emily Dolan Harvard University (Musicology) Mounya Elhilali Johns Hopkins University (Neuroscience) Philippe Esling IRCAM/Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Computer science) Cornelia Fales Indiana University (Ethnomusicology) Robert Hasegawa McGill University (Music theory) Stephen McAdams McGill University (Music psychology) Luis Naón Haute école de musique de Genève (Composition) John Rea McGill University (Composition) Friedemann Sallis University of Calgary (Musicology) Zachary Wallmark Southern Methodist University (Popular music studies, Music psychology) Stefan Weinzierl Technische Universität Berlin (Acoustics) 4 WELCOME FROM THE DEAN OF THE SCHULICH SCHOOL OF MUSIC It is my great pleasure to welcome you to Montreal, Quebec, and to the Schulich School of Music of McGill University for the 2018 conference, Timbre Is a Many-Splendored Thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Music Automata
    computer music automata Since the eighteenth century, people have been fascinated by musical automata (organs, music boxes, musical clocks, etc.). Charles Babbage’s “analytical engine,” a mechanical computer first conceived of in 1834, prompted the mathematician Lady Ada Lovelace to speculate that it could compose music. Creating music is, of course, quite different from simply creating sound; as we have seen, electronic soundmaking stretches back several centuries. But creating music requires intelligence, something that is still outside the purview of a machine. It is arguable whether computers will ever have intelligence, though limited models of artificial intelligence have been explored, some quite successfully. One model uses a computer to calculate possibilities very quickly; remember that in 1997 Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer, defeated chess champion Gary Kasparov by calculating all possible moves (200 million per second) and choosing the one most likely to succeed. early computers During World War II, a computer was a person who did calculations, or computations. Many of these computers worked for the Allied war effort, calculating trajectories for various armaments or deciphering the codes used to transmit wireless messages. The electro-mechanical computer was a result of their efforts. After the war, many applications were found for these new machines. Initially, computers were used to generate scores or to control simple synthesis. With the promise that the computer would become “an electronic brain,” composers became interested in formalizing the composition process and having the device generate scores (for performance by human musicians). The precision of the computer also suggested that it might also serve as a super instrument, and at about the same time that analogue synthesizers (electronic music) were being developed, computer synthesis also began.
    [Show full text]